Posts Tagged ATT

US Denies UN Arms Trade Treaty in Favor of Providing Weapons to Insurgents

via: OccupyCorporatism
By: Susanne Posel
July 28, 2012

Last week, the delegates who attended the Arms Trade Treaty Conference (ATT) reportedly did not come to a consensus to ratify the ATT, but rather will come back to the issue later this year.
Further talks will likely take place at a UN General Assembly (UNGA) meeting wherein 192 nations could achieve the 2/3rd majority vote for ratification of the ATT.

According to the British delegation: “We feel that we could have agreed (a treaty). It is disappointing that more time is needed. But an arms-trade treaty is coming – not today – but soon. We’ve taken a big step forward.”

Although activists in support of a convention for global gun control advocated the need to prevent illicit trade of guns into conflicted zones, such as in Syria, those same activists blamed the US and Russia for causing a stalemate during the negotiations process.

Victoria Nuland, US Ambassador to the UN released a statement on the US State Department website wherein it was admitted that “the illicit trafficking of conventional arms is an important national security concern for the United States.”

The US has committed to an ATT that works towards a contribution “to international security, protect the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meet the objectives and concerns that we have been articulating throughout the negotiation” and the US government believes that the ATT “will make a valuable contribution to global security by helping to stem illicit arms transfers, and we will continue to look for ways for the international community to work together to improve the international arms transfer regime so that weapons aren’t transferred to people who would abuse them.”

The stance of the US government, in rejecting signature of the ATT over the trafficking of illicit arms directs the purpose of the CIA and Obama administration’s involvement in arming terrorist groups in order to facilitate foreign policy objectives in the Middle East with regard to the current situation in Syria and ultimately Iran.

Of recent, the Obama administration is focusing on increasing proliferation of arms, intelligence and training to the Free Syrian Army and other oppositional factions to facilitate a forced regime change in Syria.

Continue Reading At:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Final UN Arms Trade Treaty Disarms America With Clinton’s Signature

via: OccupyCorporatism
by: Susanne Posel
July 27, 2012

The UN International Arms Trade Treaty Conference (ATT) is wrapping up in New York and their final draft is completed .

In 2009, Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, proudly announced that the Obama administration was in full support of the ATT. It was the intention of the US government to assist the UN in implementing and establishing “common international standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms to help prevent the acquisition of arms by terrorists, criminals, and those who violate human rights or are subject to UN arms embargoes.”

Clinton stated that “the United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard” concerning global gun control. “The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons.”

In 2010, the US began talks with the UN regarding the initial drafting of the ATT.

With perfect globalist rhetoric , the UN claims that it is “not pursuing a global treaty to ban gun ownership by civilians.” But rather a “tightening controls over the international import, export and transfers of conventional arms, because without such controls it is easier for weapons to be diverted from the legal trade into the illegal market, and into the hands of terrorists, drug traffickers and criminal cartels.”

Continue Reading At:

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

UN Arms Transfer Treaty (ATT) on Small Arms: Gun Grab Gradualism

via: New American
by: Thomas R. Eddlem
July 17, 2012

The United Nations is polishing up a global Arms Transfer Treaty (ATT) this month in a New York convention that would create a global registry of private ownership of firearms. This treaty — which would also mandate creation of a national collection agency for those guns and is contrary to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment — has the long-standing and enthusiastic backing of the Obama State Department, headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“Conventional arms transfers are a crucial national security concern for the United States, and we have always supported effective action to control the international transfer of arms,” Hillary Clinton noted as early as October 14, 2009. Clinton boasted that “the United States regularly engages other states to raise their standards and to prohibit the transfer or transshipment of capabilities to rogue states, terrorist groups, and groups seeking to unsettle regions.” Of course, that speech was delivered at the same time the Obama administration was transferring some 2,000 small arms to Mexican drug gangs in the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal.

The State Department website nevertheless absurdly continues to boast that “The United States has in place an extensive and rigorous system of controls that most agree is the ‘gold standard’ of export controls for arms transfers.”

In view of such obviously false public statements, one may question the sincerity of Obama State Department promises about“redlines” to the UN ATT, which supposedly protect the Second Amendment: “The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld. There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution. There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.” The Obama State Department also promises “There will be no mandate for an international body to enforce an ATT.”

So America’s Second Amendment rights are safe, right?


Continue Reading At:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

D-Day for Gun Control

via: TheIntelHub
by: Dick Morris
July 15, 2012

Without much fanfare and with as little publicity as possible, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go to New York City to sign the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), now in the final stages of negotiation at the U.N.

The treaty marks the beginning of an international crusade to impose gun controls on the United States and repeal our Second Amendment rights.

The ATT is nominally geared toward the purpose of stopping international arms sales to gangs, criminals and violent groups. But, as is so often the case with U.N. treaties, this is merely a convenient facade behind which to conceal the ATT’s true intent: to force gun control on the United States.

Secretary Clinton will doubtless succeed in inserting language into the treaty asserting that it in no way is meant to restrict our right to bear arms. But even this language will be meaningless in the face of the overall construct set up by the treaty.

The ATT is to be administered by an International Support Unit (ISU), which will ensure that “parties (to the treaty) take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within (their) territories … to prevent the diversion of exported arms to the illicit market or to unintended end users.”

The ISU will determine whether nations are in compliance with this requirement and will move to make sure that they do, indeed, take “all necessary measures.”

This requirement will inexorably lead to gun registration, restrictions on ownership and, eventually, even outright bans on firearms.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said it best: “After the treaty is approved and comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and that it requires Congress to adopt legislation to restrict the ownership of firearms.”

Continue Reading More At:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Cell Phone Corporations Help Government and Law Enforcement Spy On You

via: OccupyCorporatism
by: Susanne Posel
July 12, 2012

Your wireless company is tracking you with GPS, recording your phone calls and text messages . . . and they are selling the information they collect to other corporations, nations, governments – anyone willing to pay for the data. The US government is one of the wireless corporation’s biggest clients. They are collecting yotabytes of data from multiple sources on all American citizens.

Congressman Ed Markey complied a report wherein information from numerous cell phone corporations that showed just how much data law enforcement receives from prominent cell phone carriers.

AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and T-Mobile were requested to hand over personal client data to federal agencies and local law enforcement at an alarming rate.

  • 1.3 million = total number of law enforcement requests for “text messages, caller locations and other information in the course of investigations.”
  • 116 = average number of requests the tiny Cricket fields each day.
  • 700 = average number of requests AT&T fields each day.
  • 1,500 = average number of requests Sprint fields each day.
  • $8.3 million = the total amount in bills that AT&T sent to law enforcement and government agencies to comply with their requests. (That was up from $2.8 million in 2007.)

Sprint, catering to the illegal data mining of government agencies, has also made their job easier by providing anautomated web interface specifically designed for law enforcement which allowed them to retrieve more public information than from any other cellular phone carrier.

Continue Reading At:

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

U.S. mobile phone companies responded to 1.3 million requests for subscriber information in 2011 alone

via: ActivistPost
by: Madison Ruppert
Tuesday, July 10, 2012

According to new figures acquired from mobile phone companies by Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts, carriers responded to a whopping 1.3 million requests for subscriber information from law enforcement.

Unfortunately this is not all that surprising in the American surveillance state where police regularly use cell phone tracking,armored surveillance vehicleslight poles and more to monitor the populace.

These requests, which all occurred last year, included a wide range of information from just text messages to pinpoint phone location data.

The documents – which come from AT&T, C Spire, Leap and Cricket, MetroPCS, Sprint, T-Mobile, TracFone, U.S. Cellular and Verizon – represent the first time these figures have been made available to the public, proving just how unbelievably widespread domestic surveillance has truly become.

Rep. Markey, co-chair of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus, began the probe in an attempt to maintain what few privacy protections Americans have left.

“We cannot allow privacy protections to be swept aside with the sweeping nature of these information requests,” said Markey in a statement.

The data was made available to the public by Markey on Monday, while the New York Times received the information one day earlier.

Continue Reading At:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

U.N. finalizing Arms Trade Treaty, U.S. claims Second Amendment will be protected

via: ActivistPost
by: Madison Ruppert
July 6, 2012

Currently, the Obama administration is joining countries from around the world at the headquarters of the United Nations (UN) for negotiations, being held from July 2-27, 2012, attempting to finalize the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), part of which is the somewhat infamous “small arms treaty.”

As Brent Daggett rightly wrote in his fantastic summary of the ATT, the treaty was originally proposed all the way back in 2003. However, it was not actually addressed in the UN until December of 2006 when the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution entitled, “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.”

Since that time, support for the treaty – along with what I believe are misguidedly optimistic interpretations of its implications – has grown considerably.

This is evidenced by rehashed claims such as that of Timothy Johnson, who writes for Media Matters for America (an incredibly biased and imbalanced George Soros-backed operation), “U.S. gun owners have nothing to fear from a treaty that essentially seeks to apply the standard for importing and exporting firearms already in place in the United States on a worldwide scale.”

Unsurprisingly, Johnson’s only sources are: the chair of the Preparatory Committee for the UN Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, Ambassador Roberto García Moritán of Argentina, a UN General Assembly resolution, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a senior policy advisor to Oxfam America.

Continue Reading At:

, , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment